Report on Boy Who Died on Mission: Space

[DisneyKidds]

What’s the fastest ride – ‘Test Track’. How fast does it go – ’55 mph’. Out here in Califorina we go faster than that on the freeway onramp.

I guess the arguments about imagineered elements such as video, audio, etc. that are designed to enhance the experience and make it more intense only apply to M:S?

 

[All Aboard]

AA, not you too! We don't all have to agree on what all of this ultimately means, but you do see the important differences between the Pirates situation, and even the Dinosaur situation, and what occured with M:S, right? You know, all the stuff about unique ride systems, physical forces, and undiagnosed conditions?

Pirates, yes. I threw that in partly as an extreme - much the way a lot of the language in this thread deals in extremes. But, Dinosaur, not really. If I remember correctly, the guy had a heart condition and the stresses of the Dinosaur attraction pushed him over the edge. Did I get that right?

So, wouldn't it stand to reason that if Dinosaur has within its powers the ability to terminate someone with a known heart condition, then it could do the same to someone with an unknown condition. And, we know Splash Mountain posseses the ability to terminate someone who is mentally ill. Reading the quotes from the Medical Examiner, it seems that unfortunately any number of things could have spelled the end for this child, and at any age.

My whole point is that there does in fact exist a line of reasonableness. It's not acceptable to operate unsafe, dangerous attractions. Nor is it reasonable to expect Disney to protect every human walking planet Earth, no matter how fragile they are. I'm arguing somewhere in the middle here - as usual.

 

[Another Voice]

Also, the warning videos (not signs, but videos that are inescapable) show the attraction.

That doesn’t have the same impact as seeing the actual ride mechanism. Computer graphics on warning monitors have the same impact as the “your mileage may vary”. No one pays that much attention to them. If warning signs worked so well, Disney wouldn’t have to have someone go around and make sure everyone’s seatbelt was fastened, the lap bars pulled and hats & glasses removed – how many times do get told THAT on a ride, yet people still ignore it. Mission: Space’ is a unique ride system that very few people have experience with. It requires an additional step so that people can decide for themselves.

When you are dealing with statistics as small as one in 8.5 million, timing is a huge factor. It's not like flipping a coin where you have a pretty consistent show of heads or tails. Perhaps this fatality represents one in 200 million and it happened to happen during the third year of M:S's operation. This boy may be the only person to perish on M:S, EVER. We don't know.

And that’s the point of my case – we don’t know.

So should Disney err on the side of caution (“we’ve never had a ride do this to people before, let’s go slowly to make sure everything’s okay”) – or should it be business as usual in hope that no one else dies (“it’s just one a four year old – you have no case”)?

We know what the risks are associated with flume drops, with roller coasters and with many other thrill rides. Had this happened on ‘Winnie the Pooh’ or ‘Tower of Terror’ – there would be a greater degree of certainity about really happened. But no one has that same level of experience with centrifuges and a large segment of the general public.

I’m in agreement with All Aboard - there’s no need to shut down all roller coasters. But maybe what happened on ‘Mission: Space’ is a warning sign. We simply don’t know at this point, What’s the problem with treating it like one until we know what’s going on?

I, for myself, am unwilling to accept a number of deaths simply so my thrill rides are more thrilling. If others think this is a "hopeless" stance, well, we should be grateful Disney was and is still run by better people than that.

 

[YoHo]

It seems tome that the issue here isn't that this boy may have died just walking in the sun one day, but the question of whether Mission Space has really had the needed testing to prove that it is safe enough. This boy's death is just a jumping off point for that conversation. Some of you refuse to realize that.

More people barf on Mission space then on the average Carney Ragin Cajun ride. That suggests that the stresses and forces in that ride are more unique. We have the accusation in court filed papers that Disney dismissed safety concerns.

And the entire " He could have died anywhere" logic is frustrating. There are statisticians that are crying at their computers seeing the mangling being done here.


Yes, the boy could have died under much milder circumstances, but Stress and exertion were indicated to increase the likelyhood of an occurance. It was right there in the dratted report people. Stress and exertion.

THEREFORE, the relative stress and exertion involved in mission space versus Walking in the sun or riding the teacups or any other ride is of significant relevence.

Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that his riding mission space increased his chances of dying. No doubt at all, It's right there in the report.


All of this: "He could have died anywhere from anything." Is a bunch of grousing from people who don't want their personal fun ruined by cold hard facts.


But that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether Disney actually knows what percentage increase in danger this ride represents, whether that is an acceptable value given who and what Disney is.

 

[DancingBear]

First, A-V, YoHo and Raidermatt, thanks for your continued involvement in this discussion, I know there is more to it than you are getting credit for.

That doesn’t have the same impact as seeing the actual ride mechanism.

I understand this issue--as we discussed, you don't get the self-selectiveness at M:S that you would at a huge outdoor roller-coaster, partially because the ride mechanism is hidden.

But, of course, this is really bad show. Would we need to do the same at Tower of Terror and Rock 'N Roller Coaster?

 

[DancingBear]

Yes, the boy could have died under much milder circumstances, but Stress and exertion were indicated to increase the likelyhood of an occurance. It was right there in the dratted report people. Stress and exertion.

THEREFORE, the relative stress and exertion involved in mission space versus Walking in the sun or riding the teacups or any other ride is of significant relevence.

As I've said, I've been operating under the assumption, which I said could/should be confirmed with the medical experts, that the risks as to this specific individual and condition were essentially the same for any attraction or situation in which he had an elevated heart rate.

 

[YoHo]

"This risk could be increased under physical or emotional stressful situations. This condition may also eventually lead to heart failure."

DB, I'm not sure that's a fair assumption since the actual amount of elevated stress HAS to have a direct correlation to the chance of him dying. The more stress, the more likely it is to happen. I'm not a Dr. but this is just common sense.

Therefore, while it is true that any less then placid ride is likely to increase his chance of Death, not every ride will increase it by the same percentage.
Now, I could be wrong, but it would be totally counterintuitive and I refuse to accept such a scenario till proven otherwise.

 

[raidermatt]

If I remember correctly, the guy had a heart condition and the stresses of the Dinosaur attraction pushed him over the edge. Did I get that right?

That's how I remember it as well. I'm too lazy to verify.

I'm not quite ready to make the leap you did from the impact on someone with a known condition being the same as the impact on somebody else with a different, undiagnosed condition. Logically, that COULD be true, but unless the two people had identical conditions, the impacts could be very different.

Then there's the data, which again, I realize does not provide all the answers, but we can't escape the fact that M:S doesn't even have the history to work from that Dinosaur has. Especially when we consider Indy has been open for 10 years now. (Though there have been issues.... see next post)

My whole point is that there does in fact exist a line of reasonableness. It's not acceptable to operate unsafe, dangerous attractions. Nor is it reasonable to expect Disney to protect every human walking planet Earth, no matter how fragile they are. I'm arguing somewhere in the middle here - as usual.

Well, while I may not be following along the path all that well, we are essentially ending up in the same place.

 

[raidermatt]

Found this when looking for info on the Indy issues:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050626/BUSINESS07/50626009

http://www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/cemerson/documents/gomezdecision.pdf#search='indiana%20jones%20disneyland%20death%20spain'

Maybe there should be more of an uproar.

But either way, it does highlight one of the main points, which is that this isn't as simple as anybody saying "It's a reasonable risk...."



(By the way, I came across that second link quite by chance as a result of a Yahoo search...)

 

[All Aboard]

All of this: "He could have died anywhere from anything." Is a bunch of grousing from people who don't want their personal fun ruined by cold hard facts.

YoHo, I suppose I am guilty of making that first statement in so many words. So, you are speaking for me when you make your statement that follows. But, it just ain't true. There are countless outlets for personal fun that involve all sorts of levels of risk. Toning down Mission:Space isn't going to have a marked impact on anyone's ability to have fun.

Personally, I would have rather seen them build a fascinating dark ride about space travel instead of a centrifuge.

More people barf on Mission space then on the average Carney Ragin Cajun ride. That suggests that the stresses and forces in that ride are more unique.

Unique, yes. But more dangerous? Dizzyness and queasiness don't neccesarily equate to more life threatening. I'd be interested to know if more people vomit on the teacups than on Mission:Space. And, besides, do you really know if more people chuck on M:S than on carny rides? Or, are you just speculating. Not that I represent anything normal (or am I implying that a population of one means a damn thing), but I can ride M:S all day and come no where near vomitting. But, put me on a Tilt-a-Whirl and about 3 rides in and I am done. I think equating the vomit issue with ride safety is a leap.

 

[raidermatt]

I think its being used more as a reason to ask questions, not so much as a proven correlation.

Your experience actually highlights part of the issue with M:S. I've read many accounts on these boards from people who have "issues" on other rides but no problem on M:S. Conversely, I've also read many accounts of people being fine on anything else, but M:S ruins the rest of their day.

Does any of that have anything to do with life or death risk? We don't know. I'm just saying they need to take that into account and do more research/testing than they would otherwise do, and that this accident is another reason.

Did they actually do it? That's another issue. One which, as I've said, I have no real proof about either way, just doubts.

 

[YoHo]

The fact that it made news that Disney was looking to minimize protien spills and the subsequent reports and rumors that it failed to do so are what I'm basing this on.

If we make the assumption that Mission Space does cause more protien spills, and we combine it with a failure to reduce said spills, then that suggests that the stresses on the body for that ride are elevated, or at least less normal then those on other rides.

My stomach doesn't like the Tilt-a-whirl either. That's individual metabolism. We're talking a significant portion of riders here. To the point where it was commented on by some of our resident CMs.

That's a stress on the body and it's clearly a more significant stress for more people then other rides.

 

[crusader]

Yes, there's an added stress on the body when it comes to G-forces.

However, I'll contend that the rider of the RnRC is placing more of a stress on their entire physique than M:S ever would - not only with the G's but the jerking associated with that type of coaster. Nobody sees it in the dark.

The virtual/video presentation associated with M:S is very detailed. It shows the centrifuge. It shows the ride vehicles turn and spin at an accelerated rate - and it forces the guest to watch it during a pre-boarding briefing segment. There is no way you can miss it and there is no comparable warning given with any other Disney attraction compared to this.

The only difference is that the public has a preconceived notion when it comes to what a coaster typically entails and uses that as a measurement of personal endurance prior to deciding to ride. However, M:S insures that anyone in doubt about this attraction is made fully aware of exactly what it is before they climb in. At that point, the guest is making an informed decision.

Here's an pretty good synopsis of the issues being presented in this discussion.

http://www.classactionlitigation.com/library/THEMEParkhtml.htm

Most courts[60], but not all [61], have held that amusement park owners must exercise ordinary or reasonable care in the construction, maintenance and operation of their premises to protect tourists from injury. A useful comparison between the duties imposed upon common carriers and amusement park owners appears in Lamb v. B & B Amusements Corporation[62], a case involving a roller coaster accident.

" In some respects, the operators of amusement rides and common carriers deal with similar circumstances. Both are entrusted with passengers who depend on the operators for their safety, and both charge a fee for their services. Nevertheless the circumstances in which common carriers and amusement ride operators function differ in important respects.

The heightened standard of care required of common carriers is predicated on the principal that ' persons using ordinary transportation devices, such as elevators and buses, normally expect to be carrier safely, securely and without incident to their destination'... Persons who use rides have different expectations.

Passengers on many amusement rides expect entertainment in the form of high speeds, steep drops and tight turns. There are, of course, many kinds of amusement rides, and patrons who use those rides must, to some extent, be aware of their physical abilities and limitations and exercise some judgment as to their ability to endure the physical and mental stresses encountered on various rides. Amusement rides are not designed to provide comfortable, uneventful transportation, even when the equipment operates without incident and as intended. Nevertheless, operators of an amusement ride must still exercise a reasonable degree of care, skill and diligence sufficient to assure that a ride is as safe as is reasonably possible for its passengers "

Assumption Of The Risk/Contributory Negligence

On occasion the courts may find that the injured tourist assumed the risk of injury by ignoring warning signs and safety instructions [ Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc.( tourist ignored safety instructions in exiting the Bahama Bob-Slide and was injured ); Bregel v. Busch Entertainment Corp.( patron injured during Sky Ride; contributorily negligent in failing to observe safety signs) [65] ] unless the signs are unclear [ Beroutos v. Six Flags Theme Park, Inc[66].

( " ( patron ) admits seeing a sign that warned against pregnant women or those with existing conditions in the neck or back boarding the ride...Whether or not the sign warns patrons with no history of neck and back problems of the risk of resulting neck and back injury, is an issue for determination by the jury " )].
Assumption of the risk doctrine holds that
"... participants who sit as spectators at sports and amusements may be taken to assume the known risks of being hurt by roller coasters..."[67].
Some Courts[68] have found that injured patrons of amusement parks have assumed the risk of their injuries while others have not[69].

 

[Another Voice]

thanks for your continued involvement in this discussion,

And thanks for yours as well. This is one of those “behind the curtain” issues that a lot of people really don’t want to know about. And for people into pin trading, hidden mickeys and “magic”, there’s really no point in knowing about this stuff either. But anyone really interested in how Disney operates as a business and the forces that drive decisions – there are a lot of unpleasant facts out there which the people in the Team Disney buildings must deal with daily.

But, of course, this is really bad show.

The place is already themed as a training facility. What’s wrong with showing the simulator?

But more dangerous? Dizzyness and queasiness don't neccesarily equate to more life threatening.

No it doesn’t, but it’s a strong indication that this attraction affects people in ways no one understands. Disney spent a lot of money to prevent the motion sickness – yet it happens at levels far beyond their wildest estimates. The type of people who are getting motion sick aren’t the same as on other rides.

Something unforeseen is happening and that’s scary when you’re twirling eight million people a year.

However, I'll contend that the rider of the RnRC is placing more of a stress on their entire physique than M:S ever would - not only with the G's but the jerking associated with that type of coaster.

But ‘RnR’ only subjects its riders to sustained high g-loads for a four second launch period. ‘M:S’ does it for thirty seconds or more. The human body, we’ve learned from experience, can take sudden impact and high forces. But no one knows what segments of the population can take which level of g-loads for a period of time.

The virtual/video presentation associated with M:S is very detailed.

No it’s not. It’s a line graphic that’s completely unintelligible unless you already know what the centrifuge looks like. It’s less real and less important to the average guest than the fake pictures of your fake rocketship on the fake launch pad. People don’t pay attention. Safety requires more than a sign tacked onto the wall.

Here's an pretty good synopsis of the issues being presented in this discussion.

Lawyers exist so that people can get away with doing bad things. No person should ever look to them for any sort of moral compass.

 

[SoCalKDG]

More people barf on Mission space then on the average Carney Ragin Cajun ride. That suggests that the stresses and forces in that ride are more unique. We have the accusation in court filed papers that Disney dismissed safety concerns.

Your source for this?

 

[crusader]

He doesn't have one.

That's a continual pattern.

 

[crusader]

Lawyers exist so that people can get away with doing bad things. No person should ever look to them for any sort of moral compass.

Man, DB strokes you and this is how you respond. Nice.

Hopefully, the justice system which houses a jury of our peers exists to uphold the law. Of course, in Hollywood ....................well................that really is an entity unto itself, from which No person should ever look for any sort of moral compass

But all of this really has nothing to do with that post. You chose to ignore the paragraph which speaks about responsibility regarding theme parks.

It’s a line graphic that’s completely unintelligible

Yeah, a visual of the centrifuge spinning with a huge graphic pasted across it flashing *Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning* right before you board and on top of everything else is completely unintelligible.

Of course nothing short of tearing down the partitions which separate the attraction from the audience and making us stand there and watch the machine would be acceptable. That's a much better show.

And just how many of us do think that would scare off?

But ‘RnR’ only subjects its riders to sustained high g-loads for a four second launch period. ‘M:S’ does it for thirty seconds or more. The human body, we’ve learned from experience, can take sudden impact and high forces. But no one knows what segments of the population can take which level of g-loads for a period of time.

The data is out there and continues to present itself. ETC wouldn't be concentrating their efforts toward the consumer market if they failed to substantiate their product. If the human body couldn't withstand that level of g's, the attraction wouldn't have succeeded beyond its' initial operation.

 

[Another Voice]

But all of this really has nothing to do with that post.

I was brought up in response to your posting about Disney’s legal obligations. I don’t care what the law says - I want Disney to go beyond that and do what’s right. Isn’t that part of being “the best”?

Of course nothing short of tearing down the partitions which separate the attraction from the audience and making us stand there and watch the machine would be acceptable. That's a much better show.

Disney doesn’t seem to have a problem doing that when it saves money at Dino-Rama. I don’t think there should be a problem when it might save a child’s life by informing a parent about what’s going to happen to their child.

Besides, according to you, ever one already knows everything about the mechanism from the five second clip, so there’s no reduction in show. A show, by the way, that’s about getting into a flight simulator.

If the human body couldn't withstand that level of g's, the attraction wouldn't have succeeded beyond its' initial operation.

Where exactly has this ride been successful? All the wonderful techniques they were using to eliminate motion sickness – a complete failure. You don’t see barf bags on Carney Ragin Cajun ride.

And now a child has died.

Tell us – how many people should go to the hospital, how many children should die before you what to stop and see if there’s a problem? Give us your perimeters for a “safe” ride – how many deaths per riders?

Tell us. Give us a number. Make the same decision that Disney had to make before the attraction opened, and the decision they made the day after the child died.

 

[VSL]

And now a child has died.

A child with an underlying condition... not a 'normal healthy child', a child with an underlying condition. Children have died on other rides too, you know.

 

[YoHo]

Your source for this?

Discounting the CM I talked to that confirmed it and the rumblings I've heard there is:

I had heard rumors that the ride had been toned down recently in response to guest reactions. I'm happy to report that those rumors appear to be false. I have been on the ride over a dozen times since it's first public soft-open testing during the summer, and the G-forces seem unchanged. A manager I spoke to confirmed that the spinning has not been turned down since the internal testing was completed months ago. A friend of mine who works in the Epcot custodial department tells me they continue to have as many as 30 "protein spills" to clean up after each day.

from
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=786


And of course

"Langley estimated that less than 1 percent of all riders get sick on the $100 million ride, which uses a multi-arm centrifuge to simulate twice the normal force of gravity."



Okay, I'll buy that. Let's be generous and try 1/10 of 1 percent. Every time you load 1,000 people in, one barfs. At 40 guests per simulator, the total capacity of the four simulators per load is 160 guests. So two loads is a little over 300 people, let's figure that works out to maybe one protein spill for every six loads. The ride is four minutes long, and factor in some load/unload time, round off to say, six minutes... there's a barfer every 36 minutes or so. Must be fun to work there!

This may be a first -- Has there ever been any other ride in the entire history of amusement parks that provided barf bags?

http://dannysland.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_dannysland_archive.html

Q: What do Mission: Space and an airplane have in common?

A: They both have air sickness bags.

Epcot's newest thrill ride has begun placing motion-sickness bags in various spots on the ride, including in front of a seat, and on the restraint devices. Apparently, maintenance on the ride has become extremely difficult with frequent shutdowns of one or more centrifuges for “protein spills.” Estimating that less than one percent of all riders get sick, Disney spokeswoman Rena Langley has been quoted as saying, “The majority of guests have no problems on the attraction. And we don't expect a lot of people to use the motion sickness bags.” Of course, with the attraction shuttling through 160 riders every four minutes, that's better than one incident per cycle. The bags are apparently in a test mode, and there is no decision yet on whether or not they will be there permanently.

http://www.mouseplanet.com/parkupdates/wdw/wdw031222.htm


Name another attraction that has barf bags and about 1 barf per 100 guests.